Ford Mondeo ST

Ford Mondeo ST: which version to buy

If you are choosing a Ford Mondeo ST rather than reading a catalogue page, the fork is simple. 2 generation (1999–2001) is two 2.5 MT sedans at 205 hp. 3 generation (2002–2007) is three 3.0 MT sedans at 226 hp. Body type is Sedan on every listed version. There is no estate, no ST-Line, and no Fiesta ST in this dataset.

If you are choosing a Ford Mondeo ST rather than reading a catalogue page, the fork is simple. 2 generation (1999–2001) is two 2.5 MT sedans at 205 hp. 3 generation (2002–2007) is three 3.0 MT sedans at 226 hp. Body type is Sedan on every listed version. There is no estate, no ST-Line, and no Fiesta ST in this dataset. Common searches for ST200 and ST220 map onto that 2.5-versus-3.0 split; the catalogue names to keep are 2.5 MT and 3.0 MT.

The extra displacement, the extra gear, and the extra 21 hp are the 3 generation’s argument. The 2 generation’s argument is less mass and a larger tank. Fuel consumption on both 2.5 MT versions is not measured, so you cannot pick the older car on mpg figures from this table.

Specs that actually separate the versions

All five cars are Gasoline, 6 cylinders, V-shaped, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, engine Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point), Manual, FWD, fuel 95. Ground clearance is 120 mm on every version. Wheel size is not measured on every version. CO2 and eco class are not measured on every version.

Front brakes: Disc on both 2.5 MT; Ventilated disc on all three 3.0 MT. Rear brakes: Disc on all five. Front and rear suspension: Independent, spring on all five.

Horsepower, engine size, and what the 3.0 actually adds

2.5 MT engine: 2495 cc, 205 hp (151 kW) at 6500 rpm, 234 Nm at 5500 rpm, compression 10.3, bore × stroke 81.6 × 79.5. Specific output: 205 / 2.495 ≈ 82.2 hp per litre. Torque per litre: 234 / 2.495 ≈ 93.8 Nm per litre.

3.0 MT engine: 2967 cc (+472 cc, about +18.9%), 226 hp (166 kW), 285 Nm at 4900 rpm, compression 10, bore × stroke 89 × 79.5 (stroke unchanged; bore +7.4 mm). Peak power is listed at 6250 rpm on the 3.0 MT that does 7.4 s / 243 km/h / 1420 kg, and at 6150 rpm on the other two 3.0 MT. Specific output: 226 / 2.967 ≈ 76.2 hp per litre — about 6 hp/L lower than 2.5 MT. Torque per litre: 285 / 2.967 ≈ 96.1 Nm per litre — slightly higher than 2.5 MT. Absolute torque is +51 Nm (+21.8%). Absolute power is +21 hp (+10.2%).

The 3.0 is not “more engine per litre.” It is more engine in total, with peak torque 600 rpm earlier than 2.5 MT (4900 vs 5500). Combined with a 6-speed Manual instead of 5, that is the mechanical case for 3 generation if you want the ST220-style spec sheet.

Weight per horsepower: the real ranking

kg per hp (kerb / hp):

• 2.5 MT 7.7 s / 1345 kg: 1345 / 205 ≈ 6.56 kg/hp
• 2.5 MT 7.8 s / 1390 kg: 1390 / 205 ≈ 6.78 kg/hp
• 3.0 MT 7.4 s / 1420 kg: 1420 / 226 ≈ 6.28 kg/hp
• 3.0 MT 7.8 s / 1480 kg: 1480 / 226 ≈ 6.55 kg/hp
• 3.0 MT 7.1 s / 1420 kg: 1420 / 226 ≈ 6.28 kg/hp

The two light 3.0 MT (1420 kg) are the best power-to-weight in the set. The heavy 3.0 MT (1480 kg) lands almost on the light 2.5 MT (6.55 vs 6.56 kg/hp) despite 21 extra hp — the extra 135 kg versus the lightest 2.5 MT (1480 − 1345 = 135) eats the power gain. The heavier 2.5 MT is the worst ratio at 6.78 kg/hp.

Gross mass tells the same story. Both 2.5 MT: 1870 kg. Two 3.0 MT: 1990 kg (+120). Heavy 3.0 MT: 2145 kg — +275 vs 2.5 MT and +155 vs the other 3.0 MT. If payload and trailer-adjacent mass matter, the 1480 kg 3.0 MT is the outlier, not a twin of the 1420 kg cars.

Performance: 0–100 and top speed, version by version

Fastest 0–100 in this catalogue: 3.0 MT 7.1 s (1420 kg, 226 hp @ 6150, 243 km/h). Slowest: a tie at 7.8 s — the heavier 2.5 MT (1390 kg, 227 km/h) and the heavier 3.0 MT (1480 kg, 241 km/h). The light 2.5 MT is 7.7 s / 231 km/h. The middle 3.0 MT is 7.4 s / 243 km/h.

Spread inside 2 generation: 0.1 s and 4 km/h (231 vs 227), explained by 45 kg (1390 − 1345). Spread inside 3 generation: 0.7 s (7.1 vs 7.8) and 2 km/h (243 vs 241). The 60 kg jump from 1420 to 1480 coincides with the slow 3.0 MT; the two 1420 kg 3.0 MT still differ by 0.3 s (7.1 vs 7.4) and by power peak rpm (6150 vs 6250), so they are not the same car with a rounding error.

Versus the light 2.5 MT, the fastest 3.0 MT is 0.6 s quicker to 100 and 12 km/h faster on top (243 − 231). Versus the slow 2.5 MT, it is 0.7 s and 16 km/h (243 − 227). The slow 3.0 MT matches the slow 2.5 MT at 7.8 s and only wins on top speed (241 vs 227, +14 km/h). Buying any 3.0 “because it is quicker” is true only for the 1420 kg 3.0 MT rows, not for the 1480 kg row.

Fuel, tank, mpg: measured on 3.0 only

City / highway / combined for all three 3.0 MT: 14.6 / 8.2 / 10.6. Same numbers on the light and heavy 3.0, so this table does not reward the 1480 kg car with extra consumption figures — they are listed identical. Tank on 3 generation: 58 L. Rough combined range from those figures: 58 / 10.6 × 100 ≈ 547 km. Highway-only arithmetic: 58 / 8.2 × 100 ≈ 707 km.

Both 2.5 MT: city not measured, highway not measured, combined not measured. Tank 61 L — 3 L more than 3.0 MT. You cannot compute mpg or range for 2.5 MT from this data. Do not treat the missing 2.5 figures as “better” or “worse.” They are absent.

Dimensions and weight: what changed between generations

Wheel size: not measured (all). Clearance: 120 mm (all) — no generation buys you more ground clearance. Body: Sedan (all) — searches for Mondeo ST estate / station wagon are not answered by any version here.

Kerb: 1345 and 1390 in 2 generation; 1420, 1420, and 1480 in 3 generation. Lightest ST in the set is 2.5 MT at 1345 kg. Heaviest is 3.0 MT at 1480 kg (+135 kg). The two 1420 kg 3.0 MT sit 75 kg above the light 2.5 MT and 30 kg above the heavy 2.5 MT.

Gross: 1870 (both 2.5 MT) vs 1990 or 2145. Payload (gross − kerb):

• 2.5 MT 1345 kg: 1870 − 1345 = 525 kg
• 2.5 MT 1390 kg: 1870 − 1390 = 480 kg
• 3.0 MT 1420 kg (both): 1990 − 1420 = 570 kg
• 3.0 MT 1480 kg: 2145 − 1480 = 665 kg

The heavy 3.0 MT has the largest payload on paper (665 kg) because gross rises more than kerb. That is the one numerical reason to prefer that specific 3.0 MT if you care about mass rating rather than 0–100.

Which generation changed what

2 generation → 3 generation, using only listed fields:

• Displacement 2495 → 2967; power 205 → 226; torque 234 → 285
• Gears 5 → 6 (still Manual, still FWD)
• Front brakes Disc → Ventilated disc
• Tank 61 → 58
• Compression 10.3 → 10
• Bore 81.6 → 89; stroke stays 79.5
• Peak torque rpm 5500 → 4900
• Fuel use becomes measured (14.6 / 8.2 / 10.6); 2 generation stays not measured
• Kerb floor 1345 → 1420; gross floor 1870 → 1990
• Best 0–100 7.7 → 7.1; best top speed 231 → 243
• Clearance unchanged at 120; layout, fuel type, cylinder count, and drive unchanged

Restyling is not a separate generation in this data. Each generation is one block: 2 generation two versions, 3 generation three versions.

Which version to choose

Want the lowest 0–100 in this catalogue: 3.0 MT, 226 hp @ 6150, 7.1 s, 243 km/h, 1420 / 1990 kg. Same kerb as the 7.4 s 3.0 MT, 0.3 s quicker. That is the ST220-spec pick if the figure that matters is acceleration.

Want 3.0 torque and six gears without taking the heaviest shell: either 1420 kg 3.0 MT. They share 226 hp, 285 Nm, 2967 cc, 6-speed Manual, FWD, 58 L, 14.6 / 8.2 / 10.6, 120 mm, Independent, spring, Ventilated disc / Disc. Split them by the table: 7.1 s and 243 km/h with power at 6150 rpm versus 7.4 s and 243 km/h with power at 6250 rpm. Top speed is the same 243; the 7.4 s car is not slower on Vmax, only to 100.

Avoid if you assumed every 3.0 is quicker than every 2.5: the 3.0 MT at 1480 / 2145 kg, 7.8 s, 241 km/h. It is no faster to 100 than the slower 2.5 MT (7.8 s) and only 0.1 s slower than the light 2.5 MT (7.7 s). You still get +51 Nm, +21 hp, a sixth gear, ventilated front discs, and 241 vs 227–231 km/h. You also take +135 kg versus the lightest 2.5 MT and the highest gross (2145). Power-to-weight (6.55 kg/hp) is essentially the light 2.5 MT (6.56). Choose this 3.0 MT for payload (665 kg), not for sprint.

Want the lightest Ford Mondeo ST in the data: 2.5 MT, 205 hp, 7.7 s, 231 km/h, 1345 / 1870 kg, 61 L, 5-speed Manual. Highest specific output (≈82.2 hp/L). Missing fuel figures. Front brakes Disc, not ventilated. This is the ST200-side spec: less mass, less torque, one fewer gear, larger tank.

The other 2.5 MT (1390 kg, 7.8 s, 227 km/h) is the weakest combination of the five: same 205 hp / 234 Nm, worst kg/hp (6.78), lowest top speed (227), 45 kg heavier than its twin, payload 480 kg (lowest). Same 61 L tank and same not measured consumption. There is no listed mechanical upgrade versus the 1345 kg 2.5 MT — only more kerb and slower numbers. If the choice is inside 2 generation only, the 7.7 s / 1345 kg 2.5 MT is the one that the arithmetic supports.

If the search is estate / station wagon / ST-Line / Fiesta ST: none of those bodies, trims, or models appear. Every version is Sedan. Wheel sizes are not measured, so a tyre-package decision is not in this table.

Short rule: pick 3.0 MT 1420 kg (7.1 s if you can identify that row, else the 7.4 s row) for power, torque, sixth gear, and ventilated front discs; pick 2.5 MT 1345 kg if mass and tank volume matter more than +21 hp and you accept not measured mpg; do not pick the 1480 kg 3.0 MT for speed — pick it only if the 2145 kg gross / 665 kg payload is the point.